Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is a pure calculation, what formula or unit system is used, what the gravitational default is, or what the result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is very short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight, front-loaded writing; the single clause is circular filler that conveys no information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three string-typed parameters whose units are unspecified, the description should at minimum state the formula, expected units, and defaults for gravity. None of that is present, so an agent calling it correctly is largely guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the three parameters (mass, height, gravity) are each documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, unit, or default information beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name identifies the physics concept, but the description 'Potential Energy: Energy of potential' merely restates the name in circular form without a verb or stated computation. An agent cannot tell from this text that it computes m*g*h, nor how it differs from the sibling x402-kinetic-energy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related x402-kinetic-energy or x402-energy tools. The agent is given nothing to route on.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.